fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk
Fri Apr 10 12:42:35 PDT 2009
Jesse Noller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Michael Foord
> <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
>> Doug Philips wrote:
>>>>> I'm really looking forward to seeing what pony-build might be, so I hope Titus gets around to spec'ing his version of simple build pony stuff soon. :)
>>>> Meh, Titus' idea is simple enough that a spec might just muddy it up
>>> Maybe, but if it is too hard to describe, it is too hard to get right.
>>> The product is the spec? Hmmm, CPython vs. Jython vs. IronPython vs. PyPy - need to go that route? Again?
>>> Pandokia's spec seems awful simple.
>>> Personally, I'm rather fond of Titus' initial proposal: Work out the results level protocol, then build tools around that. Yes, you might want to build tools to help work that out, but if you've done lots of these systems before, as have some of the rest of us, we should be able to leverage that knowledge...
>> Once you have a results protocol different people can then build
>> different tools around it - reporting tools, distributed test tools etc.
>> Sounds like a winner to me. Not looked at the Pandokia spec yet.
> As much as I hate XML, it works awfully well for this in many cases.
> Again, not a fan of flat text/key-value pairs, I already went down
> that route for a few years :(
Yeah, and at least with XML building tools on top of it shouldn't
require writing a custom parser.
Just don't use CDATA for the traceback reporting - that's how we broke
CruiseControl.NET (some of test failures were for the XML parts of our
app and the error messages themselves contained CDATA blocks - which
*can't* be escaped inside another CDATA block...).
More information about the testing-in-python